homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » What are we going to do about men in politics? (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: What are we going to do about men in politics?
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I saw a tweet from a conservative columnist (!) with a quite elegant solution. It suggested that only women run for office.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Getting back to the original purpose of this thread, may I suggest a title change to "What are we going to do about men?"

Apparently Garrison Keillor has now been accused of inappropriate conduct, according to the Washington Post.

And Minnesota Public Radio has ended all contracts with him, and there's talk of changing the name of "Prairie Home Companion". (For those who don't know: it's an old-timey radio show he created, long-running and beloved. He retired from the show last year, and it's now hosted by Chris Pheelie, and changed somewhat.)

This one really shocked me. I don't know the truth of it. But...
[Frown]

And journalist Matt Lauer has been fired, after 20 years, from NBC's "Today Show" for inappropriate conduct. Someone on the news said this had been known. He had a button on his desk that would lock his office door. In one case, he got a woman in there, locked her in, and forced her to have sex. Etc.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Garrison Keillor's statement on his own page.

From this and what I heard on the news, I think his position is that whatever he did was misunderstood, but he's just done with the whole thing.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, and I misspelled the name of the current host of "Prairie Home Companion". It's Thile.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What's sadly ironic is that Keillor wrote an opinion piece in the Post only the other day (and now I can't find the link) defending Matt Lauer.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Damn, missed the edit window. No, my mistake. He wrote about Al Franken. Here is a (free) think piece from the Atlantic about Keillor's downfall.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just wanted to note that the majority of men who have owned what they did have been lefties and the majority of men who attempt to deny what they did have been conservative.
This plays directly against the "liberal hypocrisy" bullshit which has been trotted out after Weinstein.

OK, now cue the usual band of idiots to claim otherwise.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17115 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know much about Garrison Keillor and dislike anything I've heard heard that he's made.

It does seem a bit extreme of Minnesota Public Radio to "fire" him based on an allegation.

Again, as we've discussed before, it is a tricky thing to get right. I dunno, I'd just think that it ought to be possible to pause the editorial relationship until the allegation is investigated. Right now, he's become a scapegoat.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10327 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Brenda--

Thx for the links re Keillor and Franken. The one in The Atlantic about Keillor is very good. The Washington Post article *by* Keillor has an interesting header--Keillor evidently wrote a defense of Franken, while knowing that he himself was under investigation, and didn't warn the Post. They're not happy.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune also covered the story. Keillor told them:

quote:
“I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” he told the Star Tribune by e-mail minutes after MPR’s statement. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”
As I read that, it's more serious than the original news that he simply put his hand on her back. It sounds like a) she was wearing an open shirt (presumably over something else, maybe a halter top); and b) he slipped his hand up *under* her shirt.

I don't know what the truth is. But, if true, this isn't good.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In answer to the OP in the light of Damian Green, May's ... right hand man ... not knowing about browsing history, I'm intrigued as to why this was leaked and is now being doggedly followed up on. It seems a 'righteous' ex-copper is the initial source. Caesar's tax payer funded computer must be clean, let alone his wife, I suppose. I always work on the basis that everything I do, write, say, think is accountable. Which is why I feel so guilty and ashamed I suppose.

[ 01. December 2017, 09:39: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17009 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose this had to be plainly stated so that everyone knows it. No. No one wants to see your penis.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Caesar's tax payer funded computer must be clean, let alone his wife, I suppose.

TBH this is the same in *many* (i'd almost say *the majority* of workplaces), porn found on ones work PC can be grounds for dismissal (easily justified even on non-porn grounds as a lot of these sites are magnets for malware).
Posts: 3878 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I suppose this had to be plainly stated so that everyone knows it. No. No one wants to see your penis.

Brilliant! [Smile] Thx for this, Brenda.

The opening made me think of the musical/movie "How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying". And that reminded me of the scene with "A Secretary Is Not A Toy" (MetroLyrics).

In the performance, though, it's iffy whether the characters really mean the lyrics. But the lyrics are good.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I saw a production of Pajama Game a week ago. I'm sure all the chasing of secretaries and predating of female co-workers was merely funny back in the day. Now it has a dark, ugly edge.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Minneapolis Star Tribune also covered the story. Keillor told them:

quote:
“I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” he told the Star Tribune by e-mail minutes after MPR’s statement. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”
As I read that, it's more serious than the original news that he simply put his hand on her back. It sounds like a) she was wearing an open shirt (presumably over something else, maybe a halter top); and b) he slipped his hand up *under* her shirt.

I don't know what the truth is. But, if true, this isn't good.

The WNG site interprets somewhat similarly to me.

quote:
Keillor told the Minneapolis Star Tribune he committed an accidental act of indecorum when, intending to pat a colleague on the back, he accidentally reached underneath her untucked shirt.
Putting his hand under her shirt and sliding his hand up 6 inches, by his reckoning, is very different from simply patting an emotional colleague on the back.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"John Hockenberry, Former NPR Radio Host, Accused Of Sex Harassment" (MSN).

I wonder if this has anything to do with his leaving his show "The Takeaway", earlier this year? As a listener, it seemed very sudden. Afterwards, both he and NPR (?) put out the kind of pleasant, but cryptically uninformative statements that happen when there's a problem.

He allegedly harassed a guest (!), and she recently did some investigating on her own. She found other victims.

His apology is in the article. I'm getting so sick of apologies that basically say "oh, I didn't know, I'm sorry you were uncomfortable, you misconstrued what I meant, blah blah blah".
[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Damn, missed the edit window. No, my mistake. He wrote about Al Franken. Here is a (free) think piece from the Atlantic about Keillor's downfall.

From the Atlantic article:

quote:
That effect is its own kind of landscape, its own kind of frontier—a version of manifest destiny in which expansion is not geographical but ideological, and in which justice, rather than justification, is the guiding ethic. The new American landscape is a cultural space that is cognizant of power differentials and mutual respect. It is one that strives for equality. And it is one that takes for granted the conviction that belittling those who are less powerful—all the women are strong—will have, finally, meaningful consequences.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

If anyone seriously thinks that this is what is going on (ideological expansion? Justice is the guiding ethic?) they're delusional.

I've always kind-of liked Keillor (in my own eye-rolling way), so on the one hand, I'm really hoping that more allegations don't come out. On the other hand, if they're doing all this stuff (severing his contract, renaming things, pulling past recordings, etc.) over a hand on the back (even if it did go up her shirt six inches), then we are really and truly are in the middle of a witch hunt, and mob rule doesn't tend to end well for anyone.

I read his statement, in which he basically says that he's too old to even want to fight this, and I think it's a shame. Because unless there are more allegations, someone has to fight this. His conduct doesn't fit the legal definition of harassment (severe and/or pervasive), it's not criminal, and if it was one mistake... Do we no longer believe in redemption? How is this going to help stop anyone else from engaging in more serious (I'm tempted to say 'actual') harassment in the first place? How might it stop people who may have made one mistake from doing it again, because what the hell, if they're going to lose everything anyway...

Once someone has made one mistake, does that mean they're permanently barred from society (I know we've been doing this to mostly black people in terms of the criminal 'justice' system forever, but I was hoping we could reverse that trend, not expand it). Have any of these people ever worked with children (do they understand the first thing about behavior management or modification?) What exactly is the point of this kind of thing if not to simply make people scared of the randomness and injustice (I've read a bunch of people on social media saying things about how all men *should* be afraid and they don't care if innocent men get punished - but do they realize that this kind of panic/witch-hunt/ injustice never ends with just the original targeted population?) I've seen this play out with the campus rape issue already (not to mention the 80s ritual child satanic abuse thing), and it's ugly, and it won't stay contained to going after only the guilty, or only men, or only anything. That's not how these things go. Everyone seems all gleeful now, because it's mostly rich white men being taken down, but this general attitude and procedure will wind up hurting the poor and minorities the most.

Furthermore, do any of the people feeling so self-righteous because they're standing up for 'victims' have any clue how this sounds to people who have been the victims of actual harassment or assault? I know, nobody's allowed to say anything about this without invoking accusations of only believing in "legitimate" rape and blah, blah, blah, but I know a lot of people who are about done with this shit.

Unless further allegations come to light, I don't think we, as a society, can afford to let this stand. Because the current cultural atmosphere is just batshit crazy. AFAIK, they haven't even told him the allegations against him, much less allowed him to face his accusers.

This is a huge problem.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't know what the truth is. But, if true, this isn't good.

The WNG site interprets somewhat similarly to me.

quote:
Keillor told the Minneapolis Star Tribune he committed an accidental act of indecorum when, intending to pat a colleague on the back, he accidentally reached underneath her untucked shirt.
Putting his hand under her shirt and sliding his hand up 6 inches, by his reckoning, is very different from simply patting an emotional colleague on the back.

It says the shirt was open-backed; that it was untucked is their interpretation. I was assuming something like one of
these. No need for his hand to go up an untucked shirt to have contact with bare flesh or accidentally go a little under the fabric, particularly if it was a loose shirt. People move their hands around while comforting them by patting them on the back. It's simply a thing that happens, and much as he should have removed his hand if asked to, it is not by itself any form of harassment.

And, Golden Key, while I really appreciate your effort to be helpful earlier in the thread by giving actual guidance (instead of just complaining), the rules you posted earlier in this thread:

quote:
A few guidelines, which you probably already know, but just in case:

--Don't behave remotely sexually (however playful you might think it is) with someone over whom you have power.

--No whistling "appreciatively" at people passing by, or people you know (kids included). (I've yet to hear a woman say she likes that, and we generally take it as very inappropriate.)

--Hands off, literally.

--Don't make sexual jokes.

--ASK FIRST, politely, if you want to behave sexually with a person. Unless they very specifically say "Yes", don't proceed.

If, for whatever reasons, you find that problematic, talk to a therapist who can help you figure out if there's a problem you need to address.

are completely unrealistic. Few people want rules like this, and fewer will follow them, which only increases the chances for bullying and misbehavior. Particularly if we as a society are going for such harsh punishments without any semblance of due process.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2941 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Writer C.J. Cherryh condensed the rules down even further for us the other day: Don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to you in a cell.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
saysay--

In what way are those guidelines unreasonable, please?

Thx.


Brenda--

Great idea, re cell!

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Writer C.J. Cherryh condensed the rules down even further for us the other day: Don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to you in a cell.

That doesn't help. Do you know what happens in cells, often with consent (except inasmuch as prisoners are not deemed capable of consent and can, in some states, be charged with sex crimes even for masturbating if they're caught)?

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2941 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--

In what way are those guidelines unreasonable, please?

Thx.


I'm not saying they're unreasonable rules for any given person to have for themselves, but in terms of general rules that all are expected to follow, I don't think they'll work.

quote:

--Don't behave remotely sexually (however playful you might think it is) with someone over whom you have power.

Define power.

Are we talking just about an official workplace-defined position of authority? What about those cases (Weinstein and Louis ck come immediately to mind) where they were not in any official position of authority over their victims? Do you want to say that they didn't have any power over their victims?

If they did, who defines power, and how do you determine who has it? In the current atmosphere, one could argue that women have at least as much power as, if not more than, anyone they have contact with, as even an unsubstantiated accusation can be ruinous at this point. I've known any number of people involved in affairs where the single/ less public person wields greater power, as the threat of revelation of the affair to the other person's spouse (or, in many cases, to the community or world in general) has caused the married partner to do all kinds of things they otherwise wouldn't. Etc.

Even if you define having power as having it over someone in an official capacity, what do you do with the 40% of Millennials who think it's OK to have a romantic relationship with a supervisor? I know any number of people whose (successful) relationships started in such a situation (although many of them worked in places with disclosure requirements that prevented them from staying in any kind of official power relationship with the person). Are we willing to override people's own view of their relationships and declare that people are incapable of true consent if there's an official power relationship? Isn't that a bit infantilizing?

I think we could do a bit better about teaching people to be more aware of the power they may have in a given situation and how that may affect others' ability to freely consent, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to prohibit any sexual behavior between people who may have different amounts of power in different ways.


quote:

--No whistling "appreciatively" at people passing by, or people you know (kids included). (I've yet to hear a woman say she likes that, and we generally take it as very inappropriate.)

This one is reasonable in the sense that it could easily be done by everyone. But this article seems to indicate that there is disagreement about whether or not it's offensive or flattering. So who gets to decide for everyone?

quote:

--Hands off, literally.

No.

Hands off private parts? Unless you've established a willingness to engage in some sort of sexual relationship through other actions or words, yes. But in general? That's not going to work. People need touch, and it has all sorts of health benefits, etc. There can't be a rule that prohibits touching, especially since so many of our various cultural greetings involve some form of touch.

You can't even make a rule (at least not one that people will follow) prohibiting touch in the workplace. Not considering how much time many people spend at work. Even in prison, where any kind of touch can be severely punished, people sneak around and hug.

Again, I think maybe we can do a better job at teaching people to be aware of whether or not others seem uncomfortable with being touched and teach them to respect that (and ask if they're uncertain), and we can do a better job of encouraging people to speak up if they are uncomfortable, but "hands off, literally" probably won't work for most people.

quote:

--Don't make sexual jokes.

Again, not a rule that most people are going to follow. People make jokes about things that make them uncomfortable. Sexual tension makes people uncomfortable. A lot of our popular media contains sexual or sexually-related jokes and references (you yourself made a reference to Sex and the City earlier in this thread- I never watched it but as I understand it, there are a lot of sex jokes and sexually explicit discussions). People refer to popular culture all the time to bond, establish a common frame of reference, etc.

Trying to be aware of whether or not others seem uncomfortable with a joke or reference? Yes. Stopping with the sexually related jokes and comments etc. if asked to? Yes. But a complete prohibition is likely to lead to bullying and arbitrary punishment as most people won't follow the rule, which allows for a huge amount of randomness when it comes to who gets punished for breaking it (and it will frequently be those who are otherwise socially disadvantaged who are punished most harshly).

quote:

--ASK FIRST, politely, if you want to behave sexually with a person. Unless they very specifically say "Yes", don't proceed.

This is another rule that people simply won't follow because they hate it. They've tried it on college campuses with affirmative consent rules (and, in CA & MY, with actual laws). But most people don't want the rule as it destroys too much of what they enjoy about romantic and sexual encounters. Personally I advocate for the base system, and realistically I think it's incumbent on the few people who do prefer explicit verbal consent to make that clear. Because they've been trying to get that one to catch on since the early 90s, and it hasn't, because it really just doesn't seem to be something most people want. Most people are capable of handling an unwanted kiss or come-on.

I think a lot of these things are things we can teach people to be more aware of (and we can tell them that they need to pay more attention to how their behavior may be affecting others, or how it may be read by them). But I don't think they're realistic as general rules.

And, in the end, I'm not sure how much they'd have an effect on the overall level of egregious sexual harassment, because I doubt that people who commit crimes would be willing to follow them.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2941 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How about simplifying to: The other person gets to decide. You get to offer sex/touch/kisses/romantic dinner with violins playing/whatever to the person you desire. You get to do this once, and you have to make the explicit offer =before= deploying the hands, tongue, penis, violins, etc.

The other person gets to decide whether he/she wants to or not. Period. If the answer is no, then that's final. You don't get to go back and ask again, ten minutes/ten hours/ten days later. You do not get to assume that no means yes.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's simplify it even more. Is it in your job description? Part of your assigned tasks or responsibilities? No? Then don't do it at work. Every second wasted on harassing colleagues is money stolen from the employer.

As all these stories come out, I'm continually astonished at the rationalizations and the arguments about shades of grey, when we're talking about what is, aside from all other considerations, unprofessional behaviour. In our office, we manage just fine without wolf-whistling, pussy-grabbing, and inappropriate jokes. We don't have rules; we are expected to exercise good judgment.

I'm told by some male colleagues that men simply cannot stop thinking about sex for a few minutes, let alone an 8-hour-shift. If this is actually true, it's still no excuse. Should I find myself thinking about sex at work, I can keep it to myself. We don't need a rule for that either; we are expected to have self-control.

And as for the 40% of millennials who think it's ok to fuck the boss, well, tell them they're just plain wrong. Unless their career goals include being fired by an ex and despised by their colleagues.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5397 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
After PBS talk show host Charlie Rose, now Tavis Smiley (Politico).
[Eek!]

[ 14. December 2017, 08:11: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Saysay wonders, "Do we no longer believe in redemption?"

Sadly, no. Not since boatloads of US televangelists did wrong, publicly repented, begged publicly for forgiveness, and then went and sinned again.

The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 282 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:


The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

Agree, so much.

This
Dan Johnson thing has me not knowing what to feel.

On the one hand I find so many things about him not to like, he blames liberals and NPR, who hadn't said a word about him, for all his troubles. He calls himself The Pope and by many accounts he is alleged to be a racist, sexist pig.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel sorry for anyone so lost and desperate he kills himself. And Ohher is right, what other recourse did he have regarding the young woman's allegations? Murderers get their day in court and these men do not.

Posts: 6718 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We are in a time of ferment and change now, no question. I hope that after we pass through it the new status quo will be better for everybody. There still will be criminals and abusers, but they will know what they are because plenty of earlier examples have clearly demonstrated it to them. There will be less doubt.
Not that it should -ever- be in doubt, that sneaking up to the bed of a sleeping 17-year-old and assaulting her is criminal.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ETA: Reply to Ohher and Twilight
Hang on.
You are seriously saying that people who have been accused retain their positions? So the person accused of paedophilia should still run your child's crèche? Removing an accused person is SOP.
Who is being railroaded, thus far? The closest there is thus far are Garrison Keillor and Geoffrey Rush. Keillor has one accuser that the public haven't heard, but satisfied MPR. Geoffrey Rush has one accuser, but still secured a Golden Globe nomination.*
As far as how damaging accusations are, Roy Moore almost made it into the US Senate and the PGOTUS does not seem in danger of losing his job because of accusations.

Thus far, cries of injustice do not reflect in what is actually happening.

*Contrast him with Jeffrey Tambor, who did not.

[ 14. December 2017, 15:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17115 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

This is all about due process for the accused person. There has never been due process for victims. They get nil, and the bar in criminal court is so high that most didn't even try to initiate any process whatsoever. Now the things have shifted. The question is not to have the past due process reinstituted, it is to decide what the new due process should be. Which balance things better.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11183 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We must also distinguish sharply between due process in a court of law, and employment. If you are on trial in a court you get your innings, the defendant has rights. But your employer does not owe you a job; you can get canned for any reason or no reason at all.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must also distinguish sharply between due process in a court of law, and employment. If you are on trial in a court you get your innings, the defendant has rights. But your employer does not owe you a job; you can get canned for any reason or no reason at all.

Again, depends where you live. Not true in the UK.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17720 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: Reply to Ohher and Twilight
Hang on.
You are seriously saying that people who have been accused retain their positions? So the person accused of paedophilia should still run your child's crèche? Removing an accused person is SOP.
of accusations.


Whoa. No one said anything like that at all.

Ohher mentioned Garrison Keillor whose hand touched a woman's bare back while she was leaning in for a photo.

I was thinking of him and this Johnson man who killed himself because he thought he had no chance of proving his innocence. He sounds like a jerk but he was still a human being.

I haven't seen any cases of pedophiles in nursery schools, so that seems like a rather extreme example.

In fact that's part of the problem going on right now, every complaint on the "Me Too" list is treated just like any other.

I think there's a wide space between someone like Roy Moore who has a number of accusers saying he assaulted them when they were teens, and someone like Keillor who had one accuser with a relatively tame charge.

I also hate the press's misleading words regarding pedophilia. "Sex With Children" has been headlined when referring to a seventeen year old, knowing full well some people will picture a five year-old just as you have brought up "creche's" when none have been mentioned, as far as I know.

We really need to separate the definition of pedophile, so that we have a different word for sex with a minor who has passed puberty and one who hasn't. Many countries do, because it makes a big difference.

I don't see what purpose it does to lump everyone who is accused in the same group and revile them equally.

Being fired is not the problem. As has been said, we are all subject to our boss's whims. Being publically branded as a rapist, sexual predator, or pedophile is something else again.

Suppose you turned on the TV and saw yourself being accused of something vile, of which you have no memory at all. What would any of us do? It seems pretty nightmarish to me.

Posts: 6718 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

This is all about due process for the accused person. There has never been due process for victims. They get nil, and the bar in criminal court is so high that most didn't even try to initiate any process whatsoever. Now the things have shifted. The question is not to have the past due process reinstituted, it is to decide what the new due process should be. Which balance things better.
Ah, it the, "We were unfair to X in the past so let's be unfair to Y in the present and that will fix everything," plan. It's how OJ Simpson got away with murder. I don't think it serves anyone.
Posts: 6718 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: Reply to Ohher and Twilight
Hang on.
You are seriously saying that people who have been accused retain their positions?

Perhaps you could just point out where exactly I said this.

The fact that the law has not protected victimized accusers in the past (nor, for that matter, is it necessarily doing this on any consistent basis now) does not justify rendering the same rough justice to those who are accused. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I've worked with both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault. In our hypersexualized culture, where intimacy seems to been erased from our cultural menu, it is perfectly possible for two people to part company after a sexual encounter with one sincerely believing he's had consensual sex and the other sincerely believing she's had sex against her will.

It's perfectly reasonable to suspend a public servant or private employee who stands accused while an accusation is investigated. If the investigation shows guilt, then the suspension turns to firing. If the investigation clears the person, that should be made as widely known as the original accusation was.

But there must be a clear process which allows both accusers and accused to present their statements / cases / evidence to an impartial adjudicator. There should be -- but plainly aren't, yet -- clear guidelines about where "inappropriate" leaves off and "criminal" behavior begins, and who bears responsibility for investigating which. We may also need a discussion about whether we want to fire people for behavior which may have passed muster in an earlier job in another field but is Just Not On in the position they hold now, and so on.

We're in a place right now where almost none of this has been hashed out, much less established. The two things we do need to hang onto -- and tightly, given the current administration's tendency toward Rule of Orange Whim -- are these: one, we claim to be a society which operates by rule of law. Let's be that society. Two, is the behavior under the microscope part of the employee's job description?

I predict (or at least hope) that "other duties as assigned" may soon disappear from the Human Resources lexicon.

I say all this as the survivor of sexual assault who participated in an indictment, a grand jury investigation, extensive trial prep with the DA handling the case, and two trials over the course 15 months of the man who raped me. Every bit of that experience was horrible. He got 6 months. I spent two years in therapy. But under the rule of law, he had the right to face his accuser; he had a right to a trial by jury; he had a right to a competent defense. That's the law. Take away those rights, and yours and mine go right along with them.

In the realm of private employment, things get much murkier, and that worries me. When a company conducts its own investigations, all kinds of not-necessarily-relevant considerations can crop up. It can be tempting to let a highly-paid worker go even when an accusation may bit somewhat exaggerated, or there really was some misinterpretation, or even perhaps a grudge -- especially when there's younger talent champing at the bit who'll fill the relevant shoes for lots less money.

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 282 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

This is all about due process for the accused person. There has never been due process for victims. They get nil, and the bar in criminal court is so high that most didn't even try to initiate any process whatsoever. Now the things have shifted. The question is not to have the past due process reinstituted, it is to decide what the new due process should be. Which balance things better.
Ah, it the, "We were unfair to X in the past so let's be unfair to Y in the present and that will fix everything," plan. It's how OJ Simpson got away with murder. I don't think it serves anyone.
That's a reinterpretation. No-one said anything about being unfair to one at the expense of another. The issue right now is that the legal system is massively unfair to victims. It's awful.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11183 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: Reply to Ohher and Twilight
Hang on.
You are seriously saying that people who have been accused retain their positions?

Perhaps you could just point out where exactly I said this.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Whoa. No one said anything like that at all.

It seemed to be what you were implying, given that overreaction isn't really happening yet.

Regarding Keillor, it might have been innocent, we do not yet know.
Regarding Johnson, he killed himself two days after accusations surfaced. He did not have time to be badgered. I am not making light of his suicide, just that the pressure he may have felt isn't the fault of the #metoo movement.
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

In our hypersexualized culture, where intimacy seems to been erased from our cultural menu, it is perfectly possible for two people to part company after a sexual encounter with one sincerely believing he's had consensual sex and the other sincerely believing she's had sex against her will.

Sorry, this is rubbish. Rape, date rape and other sexual abuses date back farther than our "hypersexualised" culture.
Yes, having two different ideas of what occurred can happen, but it is often due to male expectations that far pre-date any cultural shift.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17115 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The issue right now is that the legal system is massively unfair to victims. It's awful.

And it will always be tipped in favour of the accused as most cases are word against word. For those in the public eye, there is a potential weight in the other direction, but as history has shown, this mostly doesn't happen.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17115 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

It should be noted that Franken has not been "ousted", he's planning to resign. Under pressure, yes, but he hasn't been "ousted" by the Senate voting to eject him, which is the only way he could be "ousted" at this point.

To take a broader point, most employment in the U.S. is at will. This means that employers can (and do) fire employees for any reason or no reason without much restriction. There are a some protections (e.g. you can't fire someone for converting religions) but they're pretty few and far between. If you said that this is problematic I'd probably agree with you, but the situation as it actually exists is that very little process is actually due to Americans who lose their jobs and what due process exists is mostly in the form of voluntarily adopted HR policies. Crying a river because a few incredibly wealthy and/or influential and/or famous men seems like arguing for a special status for wealthy / influential / famous.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10506 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

In our hypersexualized culture, where intimacy seems to been erased from our cultural menu, it is perfectly possible for two people to part company after a sexual encounter with one sincerely believing he's had consensual sex and the other sincerely believing she's had sex against her will.

Sorry, this is rubbish. Rape, date rape and other sexual abuses date back farther than our "hypersexualised" culture.
Yes, having two different ideas of what occurred can happen, but it is often due to male expectations that far pre-date any cultural shift.

Again, try reading what I wrote. I did not claim that rape, sex assault, date rape, and other abuses did not exist before these current times. I am just pointing out that communication about sex, and communicating our expectations, hopes, desires, and needs about sex is often fraught, and often nonexistent, and often very badly managed even when attempted. The faults here are not necessarily exclusively on the masculine side.

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 282 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

In our hypersexualized culture, where intimacy seems to been erased from our cultural menu, it is perfectly possible for two people to part company after a sexual encounter with one sincerely believing he's had consensual sex and the other sincerely believing she's had sex against her will.

Sorry, this is rubbish. Rape, date rape and other sexual abuses date back farther than our "hypersexualised" culture.
Yes, having two different ideas of what occurred can happen, but it is often due to male expectations that far pre-date any cultural shift.

Again, try reading what I wrote. I did not claim that rape, sex assault, date rape, and other abuses did not exist before these current times. I am just pointing out that communication about sex, and communicating our expectations, hopes, desires, and needs about sex is often fraught, and often nonexistent, and often very badly managed even when attempted. The faults here are not necessarily exclusively on the masculine side.
You said ' In our hypersexualized culture'. I am actually hypersexual. It brings compulsive thoughts and desires, but it does not force actions. I have never once even considered engaging in sex without explicit consent or a partner initiating every stage of the encounter.
Modern culture is not the factor you claim. If anything, modern culture is bringing more awareness that communication is important.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17115 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You said ' In our hypersexualized culture'. I am actually hypersexual. It brings compulsive thoughts and desires, but it does not force actions. I have never once even considered engaging in sex without explicit consent or a partner initiating every stage of the encounter.
Modern culture is not the factor you claim. If anything, modern culture is bringing more awareness that communication is important.

My apologies for using a term in a way which differs from your more direct experience. I intended no slight to you or others similarly situated.

I've also been around for possibly more decades than strictly necessary. Contemporary culture, at least as I experience this in today's USA, emphasizes and exploits sexuality in far more explicit ways, and far more often, and in more numerous ways, than the one I experienced, say, in the late 1950s and early 60s. Your mileage may vary; so be it.

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 282 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You said ' In our hypersexualized culture'. I am actually hypersexual. It brings compulsive thoughts and desires, but it does not force actions. I have never once even considered engaging in sex without explicit consent or a partner initiating every stage of the encounter.
Modern culture is not the factor you claim. If anything, modern culture is bringing more awareness that communication is important.

My apologies for using a term in a way which differs from your more direct experience. I intended no slight to you or others similarly situated.

I've also been around for possibly more decades than strictly necessary. Contemporary culture, at least as I experience this in today's USA, emphasizes and exploits sexuality in far more explicit ways, and far more often, and in more numerous ways, than the one I experienced, say, in the late 1950s and early 60s. Your mileage may vary; so be it.

I did not feel a slight, but feel that terminology so applied misses reality.
My point was that what I actually experience is what people imagine is caused by sexuality being more on display. Whilst I agree that society is more sexualised, I disagree that this is a cause or excuse for sexual harassment or abuse. The culture that created the expectations of sex is, IME/IMO older. Cinema from the 1940s and 1950s is far worse in how it treats sexuality. The expectations of female acquiescence is fairly rapey in those decades.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17115 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A female comedian friend of Louis C.K. speaks about how she feels. She likens the current situation to having a tumor cut out. Painful, ugly, but necessary.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that Franken has not been "ousted", he's planning to resign. Under pressure, yes, but he hasn't been "ousted" by the Senate voting to eject him, which is the only way he could be "ousted" at this point.

LOL. We might ask Mr. Franken just how profoundly resigning under heavy pressure from his own party differs from being ejected by the Senate (a highly likely, but not necessarily certain, outcome had push come to shove).

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take a broader point, most employment in the U.S. is at will. This means that employers can (and do) fire employees for any reason or no reason without much restriction.

As someone with a long and checkered employment history, sometimes with some small authority to hire and fire of my own, I can only say that's not my experience. Well, hiring is usually straightforward enough. Firing people is another matter. Most companies I've worked for had pretty well-defined policies in place about what would constitute cause, and what procedures people in my position had to follow to effect a dismissal that would not then lead to potential legal action or Labor Board hearings or some such.

I do, of course, understand that there are many other kinds of companies, and that many workers have absolutely zero protection, and that if more of us would only recognize that forming unions is perhaps the shortest route to securing some protection, we'd likely all be better off.

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 282 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096

 - Posted      Profile for simontoad   Email simontoad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You said ' In our hypersexualized culture'. I am actually hypersexual. It brings compulsive thoughts and desires, but it does not force actions. I have never once even considered engaging in sex without explicit consent or a partner initiating every stage of the encounter.
Modern culture is not the factor you claim. If anything, modern culture is bringing more awareness that communication is important.

My apologies for using a term in a way which differs from your more direct experience. I intended no slight to you or others similarly situated.

I've also been around for possibly more decades than strictly necessary. Contemporary culture, at least as I experience this in today's USA, emphasizes and exploits sexuality in far more explicit ways, and far more often, and in more numerous ways, than the one I experienced, say, in the late 1950s and early 60s. Your mileage may vary; so be it.

I did not feel a slight, but feel that terminology so applied misses reality.
My point was that what I actually experience is what people imagine is caused by sexuality being more on display. Whilst I agree that society is more sexualised, I disagree that this is a cause or excuse for sexual harassment or abuse. The culture that created the expectations of sex is, IME/IMO older. Cinema from the 1940s and 1950s is far worse in how it treats sexuality. The expectations of female acquiescence is fairly rapey in those decades.

Good point LB. Speaking of the expectations of female acquiescence, I suppose somewhere in this thread that I have been avoiding is a discussion of pornography. There are some fairly rapey expectations on display there, inter alia, although the more destructive portrayal is probably the idea that women are in every circumstance and relationship imaginable up for sex all the time.

--------------------
Human

Posts: 1282 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Speaking of the expectations of female acquiescence, I suppose somewhere in this thread that I have been avoiding is a discussion of pornography. There are some fairly rapey expectations on display there, inter alia, although the more destructive portrayal is probably the idea that women are in every circumstance and relationship imaginable up for sex all the time.

It isn't clear cut, but the overall research suggests porn≠negative, not inherently. Overuse of porn appears to be of potential harm, as does violent porn. Both are often indicative of prior behaviour patterns, rather than the patterns being caused by porn.
I am not a massive fan of the objectification of women that is a huge feature of the majority of porn. However, I think porn reflects the objectification problem that society has rather than the reverse.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17115 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am certain that porn gives men the idea to do stupid things. Where else would you possibly get the dingbat idea that simply showing a woman your penis would inspire her to have sex with you? Only in dumb porn movies, where it does happen because there's no other way to get the story moving from pizza delivery or whatever the setup is, to the sex.
Porn is also responsible for a lot of stupid sex -- men believe they are seeing how it actually should be done. The notion that they are seeing fiction (not to say fantasy) on the screen is not common.
I wonder if the solution to the problem postulated in the thread title is not sex education. Much much better sex education, to counterbalance all the misinformation in porn.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5833 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that Franken has not been "ousted", he's planning to resign. Under pressure, yes, but he hasn't been "ousted" by the Senate voting to eject him, which is the only way he could be "ousted" at this point.

LOL. We might ask Mr. Franken just how profoundly resigning under heavy pressure from his own party differs from being ejected by the Senate (a highly likely, but not necessarily certain, outcome had push come to shove).
It actually seems highly unlikely. The last Senators actually expelled from the Senate were Jesse Bright, Waldo Johnson, and Trusten Polk, who were kicked out for supporting armed rebellion against the United States. That was in 1862. The last time a vote on expulsion was taken was for Bill Langer in 1942. That vote failed to reach the two-thirds mark required to expel a Senator. It seems unlikely that, given the nature of the accusations, Franken couldn't convince at least 34 of his colleagues to vote against his expulsion, or convince the Senate to vote for censure instead of expulsion. It seems likely to me that if he decided to brazen it out Franken could likely remain in the Senate until his term was up in 2020. I don't see a Senate that can tolerate the likes of David Vitter going all in to make Al Franken the first U.S. Senator expelled since the Civil War. But your analysis, which I eagerly await, may be different than mine.

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take a broader point, most employment in the U.S. is at will. This means that employers can (and do) fire employees for any reason or no reason without much restriction.

As someone with a long and checkered employment history, sometimes with some small authority to hire and fire of my own, I can only say that's not my experience. Well, hiring is usually straightforward enough. Firing people is another matter. Most companies I've worked for had pretty well-defined policies in place about what would constitute cause, and what procedures people in my position had to follow to effect a dismissal that would not then lead to potential legal action or Labor Board hearings or some such.

I do, of course, understand that there are many other kinds of companies, and that many workers have absolutely zero protection,
and that if more of us would only recognize that forming unions is perhaps the shortest route to securing some protection, we'd likely all be better off.

As I've noted the majority of American workers do not have such protections. Their supervisors have a broad range of discretion for firing them.

What I find frustrating is that even when such processes are followed (such as in the case of Garrison Keillor) some will claim that there is still "no due process" in such cases. For reference, here's how MPR described Keillor's firing:

quote:
Last month, MPR was notified of the allegations which relate to Mr. Keillor's conduct while he was responsible for the production of A Prairie Home Companion (APHC). MPR President Jon McTaggart immediately informed the MPR Board Chair, and a special Board committee was appointed to provide oversight and ongoing counsel. In addition, MPR retained an outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations.
To me it sounds like a Keillor got a lot more due process than a typical retail worker would get if they were fired after being accused of stealing their co-worker's lunches out of the break room fridge (or refusing to give the boss a blow job), but to some it seems like no process that results in the firing of a wealthy/famous white dude is ever considered "fair".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10506 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lilBuddha wrote:
quote:
It isn't clear cut, but the overall research suggests porn≠negative, not inherently. Overuse of porn appears to be of potential harm, as does violent porn. Both are often indicative of prior behaviour patterns, rather than the patterns being caused by porn.
I am not a massive fan of the objectification of women that is a huge feature of the majority of porn. However, I think porn reflects the objectification problem that society has rather than the reverse.

I did try to get a view on what research on this was showing, but it was quite a few years back now. But FWIW, the direction seemed to be towards the view that statements such as "Porn does x" were unhelpful, largely because there seemed to be subsets of the population that reacted differently. There seems to be evidence of it being dangerous for some but helpful (modestly) for others. The "dangerous" subset being quite small. The research was on the effects of porn on males. I've not seen any work on effects on women (directly).

I guess that is commensurate with what you just posted, but I wonder if any more can be said? The objectification thing I agree with also.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4810 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am certain that porn gives men the idea to do stupid things.

The problem isn't that porn is giving men bad ideas, but that they are looking at porn for ideas. Mainstream films do much more harm as far as giving people ideas of how to behave. The "good" guy deserves the girl, stalking is an acceptable form of courting, outrageous gestures > real communication, one can "win" a girl/guy, etc.

quote:

I wonder if the solution to the problem postulated in the thread title is not sex education. Much much better sex education, to counterbalance all the misinformation in porn.

Good sex education is a great thing, but doesn't have anything to do with the OP.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17115 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools